![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Since this artical is seen in comparison with other articals in the Template Conceptions of God (shown at righthand side) {{ Conceptions of God}} in other beliefs, I suggest that it must be formated in the manner similar to articals, the most obious is the location of the this template which is placed below the general InfoBox about Christianity, while in all other articals it is at the top, I note in case of Islam the template Conceptions of God is at top while the template Islam is positioned under the second level heading (that is after two =s, dont know the right scripting nomenclature). I am eager to do this formating change in article Christianity, please suggest appropriate action. Mkashifafzal ( talk) 11:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I removed some text comparing the Trinity to ideas in Hinduism. Whilst this is a very legitimate topic, the text was poor and biased.
The text in question:
"But the word "Trinity" is came from the ancient Hindu culture from India. In Hinduism, the three main gods Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are called "Trimurthis".In sanskrit and all other languages in India, "Tri" means Three. This is a clear evidence of copying words and ideas from Sanskrit to English and other European languages. So christanity is actually copied ideas from other parts of the world, basically from Jews and Hindus."
MFD
C. Logan,
Facts
Comment
I have looked up in the Discussions for your supposed contributions (“as per Talk reasoning”) on “Nontrinitarianism”: there is nothing of yours relevant to the point, and/or specific, and certainly nothing after 19 March 2007.
The Trinity is, obviously, a very controversial subject, so much so that, within the body of the main article, there is an entire section (present section no.6) on “Nontrinitarianism” further subdivided in two sub-sections, “Criticisms of trinitarian doctrine” (6.1) and “Nontrinitarian groups” (6.2).
So, it is perfectly normal that a controversial subject as the Trinity, for which a section with subsections on antagonistic POVs has already been accommodated for in the main article, should also have the section “External Links” subdivided accordingly in “Pro” and “Con” subsections.
Another, altogether different issue, is the quality of the links, which can certainly be criticized and improved upon, with editing, NOT wholesale deletion.
Conclusion
I am therefore going to reintroduce the subsections and links that you have removed.
Warning
At your next attempt of removing a. m. subsections and links, I am going to resort to some form of “Dispute Resolution”
WP:DR
Miguel de Servet
16:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
The vast majority of Christians consider the matter settled as of 381.
— TCC 20:59, 23 March 2007]
TCC,
if there was any need for evidence that those who argue against the opportunity of keeping the section "External Links" subdivided in “Pro Trinity” and "Contra Trinity", are NOT expressing an objective NPOV attitude, but a heavily doctrinal defence of the Dogma of the Trinity, you have (perhaps unwittingly ?) provided it.
--
Miguel de Servet
15:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
AnonMoos,
are you seriously trying to argue that, as of 381 CE (interesting choice, BTW, as distinguished form 325 CE), the future of Christianity, including not only the dogma of the Trinity, but also of Sacraments, of Church discipline, of Predestination etc. was clearly and irreversibly chartered? What an appallingly uncritical, naive idea!
Miguel de Servet
18:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
The trinity is controversial both within Christianity and within monotheism in general. The very fact that so many Christians stake this doctrine out as an absolute even when they're willing to question Church tradition and the Bible itself, that fact makes legitimate opposition to it all the more noteworthy. We have no business excluding other sides from the discussion. A nontrinitarian reader (Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Buddist, unitarian, Sikh, New Age, modalist, etc.) can reasonably wonder about the source of this singular doctrine and its incidence among Christians. If the claims of the nontrinitarians are rubbish, trust the informed reader to recognize such. Jonathan Tweet 20:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
The vast majority of Christians DON'T HAVE A CLUE what happened in 381.
— Jacob
ribs) 00:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I added an external link:
This link does not belong on the nontrinitarianism page because its topic is the trinity, not nontrinitarianism. Jonathan Tweet 03:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I reverted a sizable chunk of text added by an anonymous user. Large portions of it appear to have been lifted verbatim from Catholic Answers and The Catholic Encyclopedia. Neither is really suitable here as verbatim text, and the former is a copyright violation. There may have been a useful sentence or two in there, but it would have been more trouble than it's worth to disentangle it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
This article confounds the terms 'Modalism' and 'Oneness'. Most Oneness believers do not believe in a modal kind of oneness. They believe that Jesus Christ is the One Personal God, and that He is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit simultaneously. A modal belief on the other hand is a belief in successive manifestations of God. The effect of not making this distinction is to hook the Oneness doctrine to the anchor of this ancient heresy so as to drown it and make people ignore the Biblical confirmations of the Oneness doctrine.
Jasonschnarr 22:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Modalism does not necessitate "a succession of modes". Swedenbourgianism, one form of modalism, holds to such a succession. Classic Oneness terminology is "Father in creation, Son in redemption, and Spirit in regeneration", but these terms refer to the modes in which God works in relation to humanity. It does not mean that the "Spirit" did not exist until after the "Son" ascended. Jacob 15:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi all. Someone mistakenly put Christian Science in the catagory of nontrinitarian. I removed their name from the list and added a little blurb in the begining of another aspect of the Trinity. Seems to be some misunderstanding about what Christian Science believes. Great to have the opportunity to get a full picture of the different ways to view the trinity. E-mail if you have any questions Would it be better to add Mary Baker Eddy's ideas on the trinity under historical perspectives? Simplywater 19:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your opinion, however, her definitions of the Christ and God are found in m-w.com. Meaning, her insights are recognized as valuable, unique, and historical understanding of Christian concepts. Perhaps you can tell me which part of this section you would like her definition included. 70.56.22.171 07:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC) Simplywater 07:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you guys for working with me! That was easy. Simplywater 03:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely my pleasure. Don't let the 40 days throw you :) these discussions have been going on for 1900 years. what's another 40 days or so. Simplywater 17:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi all, Somehow I need to reference Science and Health because that is the source of the quotes used. I´ve tried to put it in, but not sure how.
Hello, ok, I have the feeling there is some objection to having the book Science and Health with Key to the Scripture on this page. I've never seen personal edits on reference books in encyclopidias. My biggest objection is the insistence that Christian Science is non-trinitarian. Christian Science includes the trinity in it's teachings. You may not like it, but my understanding is that this is an encyclopdia. Wikipedia is an attempt to let those who are interested in knowing the different ways terms can be explored. "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the WORD, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." 1 John, 5:7
So, how do we edit references? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.80 ( talk) 18:19, 22 June 2007
I'm in Guatemala and for some reason this signal doesn't record my user name. I have no objection that the CS understanding of Trinity is different than orthodox understanding. And in fact, Trinity isn't even in the King James Bible. But we are trinitarian in that we believe in the unity of God, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. We believe that those concepts are purely spiritual and never material. Simplywater
Thanks for the interesting note on the Johannine Comma. Wow what interesting research!! I guess for me it's another example of how the Bible encourages us to stretch, never lets us be done. I mean, God is the Infinite.
It is claimed that only a small fraction of people don't accept the Trinity, and thus their point of view seems to be waredited out. By this logic only a small fraction of people in catholic lands support abortion or birth control because the church officially opposes these.
Respected people such as Isaac Newton have quietly and strongly disagreed with the "official" view, and there are many shades of opinion, some may agree with concept of "Father, son and spirit" as important thus trinity but disagree that father son and spirit are co-equal and all without beginning. An opinion without solid evidence that only one side is common is flawed, it is obvious from these discussions and all over the internet that there are lots of people on both sides and we could also includes non-christian historical scholars.
I believe NPOV is quite clear and editing an article to delete opposing views and correct weasel words is wrong but is happenning.
I suggest rather than split articles based on opinions (which violates NPOV), we split them based on sub-topic if needed. Eg we can have a detailed discussion on John 1:1 and any other scripture or group of scriptures including the original greek text and transliteration and comparisions to other scriptures with same greek words in similar usage and many different sources linked to show that the westcott and horts or whatever source of that text is not in dispute. In the main article we should hyperlink a reference to the discussion on each individual topic and only abreviate in a neutral way opinions given.
It looks like this debate has being going on for year or more, so I suggest we mediate this out, and afterwards if warediting happens put article under protection.
I moved this section to the bottom of the page, which is where new threads ought to go, and also removed the Mediation banner. Not only has the issue been resolved, but the request for mediation was never actually made. I'll add a substantive comment later, but I want to save the ASAP to avoid edit conflicts. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
First, we don't simply cite scripture as we like here as if it clearly supported on side or the other. We cite scripture that has actually been used by one side of the debate in order to support their thesis, ideally giving references as we go. To do otherwise is original research.
Second, we can characterize the debate in the article, but we do not actually engage in debate in the article. If this article seems pro-Trinity, it can nevertheless hardly be an NPOV violation when there's an entire article devoted to the "other side". Do we engage in the debate in both articles? That would be the only fair way to do it if we were to. But, thankfully, we don't. However, the point of this article is to cover the subject of the Trinity. We cover other points of view in their own devoted articles.
Third, the absurd contentions about the Greek meaning something different is unsourced. We don't get to simply make assertions like that without supporting them by citing reliable sources. In any event the fact is that the doctrine was formulated by people who spoke NT Greek as their day-to-day language, and they understood it perfectly well. (Just to hazard a guess here, user:David edmonton is Jehovah's Witness with his harping on John 1. Their mistranslation of the crucial opening verses is notorious.)
Fourth: David, all you have done since editing on Wikipedia is to edit-war over this article. [4]. I strongly suggest you take the time to review Wikipedia policy and get used to the way things are done around here before you start this kind of activity, which is strongly frowned upon. It's not an auspicious start, and I'd much rather see you a productive editor than get banned or ostracized. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
And fifth: David, before you make one more edit, please learn wiki syntax, particularly how to create internal links. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe it is against the wikipedia way to have an article with a Point of View and justify it by moving alternate views into a different article that is hard to find a link to. For example the treatment of gospel of John as claimed to support trinity, with only citations of supporting scriptures and alternate scriptures that fit the same format but do not seem to support trinity being removed. If we can find a way to be more balanced, great, I am not going to waste time posting and having stuff deleted 10 minutes later. I am willing to go to formal mediation over this if we can't resolve our differences.
I would be happy to find a common ground where there is an easy to find means to see all views on each piece of evidence so that any newbie user who types "Trinity" in wikipedia search and only reads some of the article will see a NPOV. David edmonton 00:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I think we have to be careful with some of our logic. For example, there are many articles on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and on all of them you will find critiques and statements that others believe differently. Using some of your logic here all of that information should be deleted because the topic is Mormonism. Logan, I have found that we generally agree on most ways of editing and I respect you as an editor. My comments should not be interpreted to be in full support of the other side, but only that you make sure that there is a balance found in the article with easy, prevalent links to those articles that support a contrary view. Does this seem appropriate? I did not reread the entire article again before making this edit so I am only addressing the talk page at this time. Cheers. -- Storm Rider (talk) 03:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
While I agree that the history section should be rewritten in prose and put into context, I disagree strongly that this article should turn into a debating society transcript. Again: Are any of you who are arguing for "balance" at such length here equally willing to "balance" nontrinitarian-related articles as well? If not, why not? Any reason you might give here for "balance" would apply there as well. In other words, you would have to be equally in favor of arguing for the Trinity in those articles as you are for arguing for nontrinitarianism here. So why don't I see anyone doing that?
Of course, this is a bad idea on its face since it would result in duplicated content. If it's a bad idea for either, then for genuine balance its a bad idea for both. Since nontrinitarianism is a complete subject in its own right it deserves its own article and should not be merged in here -- it would made this article an over-long, jumbled mess anyway. To present complete arguments for the opposite POV in one article but not the other is to create a slant toward nontrinitarianism.
Sorry, you don't get to do that. TCC (talk) (contribs) 18:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I should note that we should definitely have sources which support the exegeses of these particular verses being in support of the Trinity. Holy Scripture is a primary source, and as such lends itself to highly to personal interpretation (OR). One need only look up 'Christian denominations' to fully grasp just how easy it is for one individual to catch a wave of followers with his or her own personal interpretation of things. As such, the scriptural presentations on the page should be given citations- while I earnestly believe in the Trinitarian quality of many of them, there is no certainty without sources that anyone else but myself and the contributing editor felt that such scriptures were in support of the Trinity. Sources for these assertions shouldn't be hard to find- I do believe that the Bible commentary in many editions of the Bible counts as a reasonably reliable secondary source. Of course, make no mistakes- I'm not saying that Nontrinitarian arguments belong here (outside of the summary section). There is a place for such material on Wikipedia- links to such articles are more than sufficient. This article which intends to detail the 'who', 'what', 'when', 'why', 'where', and 'how' of the Trinity- not common arguments against it. -- C.Logan 03:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if this is the right place to mention it but it is confusing to present The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints as both non-trinitarian and Non-Orthodox trinitarian. RealbigD ( talk) 16:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
There is no historical evidence that Ignatius was a Trinitarian. His writings follow closely to the writings of Paul in format and content. As a third generation church leader, he was prior to the Apostolic Fathers and prior to formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity. Only in the interpolated longer rescensions of his letters do you begin to see where later revisionists began to add Trinitarian language to his writings. In the accurate middle rescensions, there is no such language. These quotes should be removed as support for the Trinity. Jacob 17:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I have made a beginning page called List of miracles, and one of my main issues was the name of the Christian 'God'. I have Allah and Yahweh, for Islam and Judaism respectively, however I am hesitant to use Jehova, as this is viewed as being inaccurate. SCmurky 04:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
The opening paragraph contains the sentence: "The majority of Christians are Trinitarian, and regard belief in the Trinity as a test of orthodoxy." Someone removed the last phrase, "and regard belief in the Trinity as a test of orthodoxy," with the dismissive comment, "removed nonsense". The original sentence is an accurate NPOV statement of fact--the majority of Christians do believe that belief in the Trinity is a test of orthodoxy. Whether or not an individual agrees with that or not is of course another queston, but such personal opinions have no place in a Wikipedia article. I undid the change, and if anyone feels it was wrong to do so, please discuss it here rather than begin an edit war. Thank you. MishaPan 17:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
This site was removed per WP:EL, but I recall user Csernica allowing this blog to remain (he previously removed blog links) because it was by a recognized authority. It is by a professional in the field (professor in the philosophy of religion), so I do suppose it holds some weight on the subject. Either way, it makes for an interesting resource. Is there any input on whether or not this link should remain?-- C.Logan 05:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
There is an earlier reference to some sort of unified spirit of God earlier than listed in the Bible. In Genesis 4 it says, "Then God said, Let us make man in our image ... in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." Isn't it interesting that the pronoun "us" was used? This possibly shows the union of the spirit. The Trinity also shows a way of somewhat explaining our yearning for community. Maybe our creator was the very definition of the word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.39.133.133 ( talk) 15:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Considering myself a mainstream christian, I find this repetition of God being "3 persons" absurd – I thought "3 personae", and considered "personae" being distinct from "person" – so I looked up "persona" in my Latin dictionary and found (tataaa, imagine a trumpet):
that is: something like a role in f.ex. a theatre play. Said: Rursus ☻ 11:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
The article is in ENGLISH, not LATIN. It SHOULD be fixed. A "person", in ENGLISH, is a "living human being", not God, not the Holy Spirit. The etymological path should never take precedence over knowingly confusing the reader with definitions that are not in English dictionaries! The whole article needs fixing to use persona, hypostases, or personae, as described in the wiki article on hypostasis. The reference in this article that tries to justify the use of "persons" is a 1913 Catholic encyclopedia definition which is not modern nor objective. By trying to force a new definition on the current English word, it shows a religious bias and does not help newcomers to the subject understand it, which is the whole purpose of wiki. Instead, using "persons" in the opening paragraphs without explaining why promotes only confusion for those trying to clear up the confusion. 24.214.120.227 ( talk) 14:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
You are both using part of the definition of trinity (i.e. its modification of the word "person") to define trinity. You're creating a circular reference within the article. Bolding (i disagree with that), italicizing, and linking the word "person" does not help clarify the article. At least hypostasis has been added which i guess resolves my concerns. But i still say you can't say "person" without the immediate image of a human coming to mind for 99% of all English readers. For this reason, it should be deprecated in all intellectual discussions of the trinity in favor of another word, as the FIRST TWO people in this section stated, so you two are out-voted in keeping the word "person", but i don't have a continuing desire to argue with theological-minded people fighting over their turf to the detriment of people who would like to learn about the subject using common English. 24.214.120.227 ( talk) 18:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
The edit automaton complains that the article is 82 kilobytes long, there's a {{quotefarm}} complaint. So therefore, I suggest the article might be cleaned by moving the quote farm section Formulation of the Doctrine to a separate article, and writing a short review to replace the section. Said: Rursus ☻ 13:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Inserted {{quotefarm}} on my own in section Scriptural texts cited as implying support, only the section texts and a few links to relevant citations are needed. The list of citations could be analysed better elsewhere, then preferrably against a background of theological debates, in order to make this apologetic material sensible for an encyclopedia. Said: Rursus ☻ 15:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I had added a short paragraph at the end of the intro regarding part of the historical significance of this concept. I just re-edited and the paragraph now looks like the following.
C.Logan had previously eliminated the reference to the Roman Empire and the statement regarding the longevity of the debate with the following comment.
I would like to explain why a reverted the changes (well, with some slight alterations).
-- Mcorazao 18:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't specifically disagree that mentioning other conflicts surrounding Trinitarianism are significant. And I agree that a discussion of the reasons for the final victory of the Trinitarian/Nicene doctrine. I also agree that the intro is somewhat vague on the significance of the Arian controversy. Frankly I do not quite know how to succinctly summarize the issue in the intro without going into too much detail to be appropriate. So I opted for just bringing it up and make the reader curious to read on.
I would argue, however, that the original Arian controversy (bearing in mind that those labeled "Arians" were not all truly followers of Arius) was more significant historically than the controversy with Unitarianism. It is especially significant since the so-called Arian controversy was born out the original debates among the Christian community (i.e. this did not "originate" in the 4th century it was just during the 4th century that it all came to a head). The Unitarian and similar controversies came up much later and, in and of themselves, never represented a major split in the Christian community as the Arian controversy did.
Regarding the patriarchates vs. the whole Christian community I think you're looking at history in a biased way (albeit the way most churches today tend to view it). When Constantine convened the councils there was no established pentarchy and the Christian community was not, even then, confined to the empire. There certainly was no general consensus that Constantine, the bishop of Rome, or any of the other bishops had any special rights to speak for Christianity. Constantine was attempting to build a consensus on the definition of Christianity but I don't think it can be objectively argued that he succeeded (as evidenced by the Council of Rimini). But even if you argue there was a consensus, the bishops did not carry the authority to speak for every Christian community, especially not all those outside the empire.
In any event my attempt was not to attempt to justify the historical significance of the concept. The point is that although most people today tend to think that modern Trinitarianism has been almost exclusively the viewpoint within Christianity since its earliest days, in fact the very concept was at the heart of many major political and military battles in Europe/Africa/Asia for several centuries. I think that is significant enough to at least mention in the introduction.
-- Mcorazao 04:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps mentioning the Gnostic views is worthwhile as well. It is hard to know where to draw the line. In any event it is clear that there is some "agreeing to disagree" here. Thanks for all the feedback.
I will say that although I certainly support efforts to reword for clarity I still don't like the current wording. It is problematic on two counts: 1) The "Western Roman Empire" did not really exist during the most of the period the current revision is discussing, and 2) The new wording is a bit unclear for the novice reader. Most people wouldn't know what is being referred to by a "segregated social order". In other words, I think by adding detail things were made less clear. If I had my 'druthers I'd suggest perhaps
But I'll halt any further commentary since at least the issue is mentioned which is more than was there before.
-- Mcorazao 17:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I think we should look at the Bigfoot page and see how they handle criticism of their concept. Do they have criticisms of the Bigfoot theory on a separate page or on the same page? I am going to look now. 69.51.152.180 —Preceding comment was added at 03:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is just my thinking, but i believe that the picture GodSonHolySpirit.jpg displayed is going against what this article is talking about or something to that effect, because the trinity is 3 people, the Holy Spirit ((who can be thought of as a dove in John 1:32 "I saw the ((Holy)) Spirit come down from heaven as a dove" and Jesus being a man, but i don't think God should be represented as a bearded man, even a man, even though in Genesis 1:27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." we don't know what he looks like, and shouldn't be imagining what he looks like, because it would be Idolatry. now this is just my opinion, if anybody has anything to say about this, please say it, i'd like to understand. Alec92 03:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
My friend, you answered the question yourself! "So God created man in his own image, in the IMAGE of God He created him.."....Think...Apparently, MAN is the IMAGE of his creator, is he not?...hint,,, Man is a THREE part being, (Body, Soul, Spirit...).David B
I don't get the feeling that the article really gets to grips with the origins of the belief in God as Trinity. It describes the process, but not the reasons. What prompted me was a personal interest in the relationship of the episode of the 3 visitors to Abraham, one of the God and the other two described as angels. Given the intense interest of the early church in Genesis, could they have decided that this was in fact the Trinity? (Maybe not, since the visitors are explicitly described in Greek as angels, although in Hebrew they're "men"- but clearly not just any sort of men). Anyway, why did the early church decide God had to be 3? Two would have been enough - God the Father and God the Son - so why three? PiCo 11:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
On a side note, this section may not be pertinent to article improvement. The OP seems to want to enforce theories from his own school of thought, but as it is, we don't push POVs. I suppose there is somewhat of a case for concern here, so I've left it, but as it seems, it just appears to be a case of an individual unsatisfied that the article (and reliable scholarship) doesn't cater to his line of thinking. Correct me if I'm wrong.-- C.Logan 02:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
The section Trinity in Art has a subsection that consists only of a gallery of pictures. Shouldn't that go at the bottom of the article, before the notes and references? For that matter, shouldn't the entire Trinity and Art be transferred to the end? -- Blanchardb 21:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
No and No. The article ends with several highly (?over-) detailed theological sections, and the art section should be where it is. There is no reason not to have the galleries next to the text they illustrate. Johnbod 22:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm seeing weasel words in here, especially in the OT section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.129.232.37 ( talk) 22:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I believe that, in an article about the Trinity, the least that could be expected is a list of scriptures commonly used in support of the doctrine. That there are such scriptures does not constitute OR (it's more like duh!), but specific passages may be tagged as OR if no one can say who is using them to support the Trinity, and how. So the OR tag should be directed at specific passages on this page. -- Blanchardb ( talk) 00:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Now, anon had recently inserted an objection into the text concerning the statement that the Comma Johanneum was not used patristically, citing St.Cyprian's note in the sixth chapter of his "On the Unity of the Church".
Now, after checking the text in question (and the article on the Comma Johanneum, which contained some rather sloppy OR arguing against the validity of the claim that Cyprian quoted the text directly), it appears to be semi-correct. Cyprian states:
The Lord says, “I and the Father are one;” and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, “And these three are one.” And does any one believe that this unity which thus comes from the divine strength and coheres in celestial sacraments, can be divided in the Church, and can be separated by the parting asunder of opposing wills?
As such, he doesn't quote the entire verse directly, but he does paraphrase the text in a manner which does not count out the possibility of the original text conveying the same concept (the OR on Comma Johanneum claimed this possibility as unlikely, apparently in the opinion of one editor).
The Catholic Encyclopedia notes that while the Greek and Armenian fathers do not use the text until the 12th century, "The Latin Fathers make much earlier use of the text as canonical Scripture. St. Cyprian (third century) seems undoubtedly to have had it in mind, when he quotes John, x, 30, and adds: "Et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est -- Et hi tres unum sunt" (De Unitate Ecclesiæ, vi). Clear also is the witness of St. Fulgentius (sixth century, "Responsio contra Arianos" in P. L., LXV, 224), who refers to the above witness of St. Cyprian. In fact, outside of St. Augustine, the Fathers of the African Church are to be grouped with St. Cyprian in favour of the canonicity of the passage. The silence of the great and voluminous St. Augustine and the variation in form of the text in the African Church are admitted facts that militate against the canonicity of the three witnesses. St. Jerome (fourth century) does not seem to know the text. After the sixth century, the disputed passage is more and more in use among the Latin Fathers; and, by the twelfth century, is commonly cited as canonical Scripture."
While the authenticity of the text is certainly disputable, I don't think that the issue is so clear-cut that one can say that "it was not used patristically". Therefore, I think the statement should be excluded, with the issue of Cyprian and those who quoted his statement/usage of the phrasing dealt with in other sections of the article.-- C.Logan 21:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Just noticed that Italian Wikipedia has an article it:Iconografia_della_Trinità; it would be useful to have a similar article here... AnonMoos ( talk) 15:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Against my better judgment, I wrote a sourced response in the article to a comment that was added today to the bottom of the Criticism and Debate section. The next time, I think I will simply revert the addition. Please feel free to revert the two edits that were made today if you deem that appropriate. --Blanchardb- Me MyEars MyMouth-timed 22:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
User:Wonderpet added this article to Category:Triune gods. User:Blanchardb reverted that edit saying "Only opponents of this doctrine claim that the Trinity means a Triune God" in the edit summary.
I reverted Blanchardb back to Wonderpet's original edit. Aside from the fact that I think I disagree with Blanchardb's edit summary, there is also the problem that Triune God redirects to this article and the article on the Holy Spirit is also in Category:Triune gods. Thus, this is an issue that is not simply resolved by reverting User:Wonderpet and requires further discussion. Can we start this discussion by having Blanchardb and Wonderpet explain what their positions are on this question?
-- Richard ( talk) 19:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I haven't even looked at the Triune Gods category -- but Christians believe God is Triune, so... what's the problem? Is it a problem with the formulation of the respective concepts? People can see those differences in the articles -- but they'll only see those differences if the articles link to each other. My point is this: if they ARE related the articles will make that apparent, and if they are NOT related the articles will make that apparent. The link is beneficial whichever side of the fence you're on. People should pick meaningful battles; this isn't one. Tim ( talk) 21:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
My problem with the link is not the link its self but that the category is a bogus one and should maybe be deleted. Like Tim said, its not a battle worth spending a lot of time on, the article can beef up the distinction a little more if we keep the subcategory but we should be careful about over categorization, especially on sub cats . Hardyplants ( talk) 00:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
My own OR is that it's archetypal (even Philo associated two powers with God, as I've seen from the sources cited on the Shituf page). It cuts across unrelated cultures in such a way that it may be embedded in the psyche (even language has first, second, and third person constructions -- but I am not aware of a "fourth" person linguistic pattern). The problem is that the formulation of "Trinity" and "Triad" are different, but that can be resolved easily: A Triad is Tri-theistic. A Trinity is something else entirely. The category should be renamed to something like "Divine Triad or Trinity." I have no idea how to rename a category. But that would resolve the formulation difference problem on both sides. The concepts do relate, even though they are not the same. Tim ( talk) 18:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
The category contains triads. Triads DO relate to the Trinity, though they are not the same. Isis-Horus-Set, for example, and Odin-Ville-Ve (the allfather, Will, and Wisdom). These are triads. There is a triple goddess listed there. All I'm suggesting is a renaming of the category to include "Triad" in its title along with "Trinity" (or "Triune"). That way, people can find what they are looking for more easily, and they can debate the relationship or difference between the two. Look -- the point of NPOV is to be a useful tool for people of any POV. We want to sell ammunition to both sides of any POV at the same time. Are they the same? Are they not? Let the readers figure it out. All we are supposed to do is give them the opportunity to do so with neutral information. Tim ( talk) 19:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
In "Formulation of the doctrine" I switched it on one sentence which had "Docetism and Sabellianism ( Christ the same as God, or an illusion)" because the way it read it sounded like it was saying Docetism - same as God, and Sabellianism - illusion, when it should be the reverse. So, just a little flip for clarity - signed Anon. (don't have account yet)
The word "Some" is use a few times in this paragraph, and it is lacking in the concomitant referencing, falling into violation of the policy Wikipedia:NOR as it is:
Some feminist theologians refer to the persons of the Holy Trinity with gender-neutral language, such as "Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer (or Sanctifier)." This is a recent formulation, which seeks to redefine the Trinity in terms of three roles in salvation or relationships with us, not eternal identities or relationships with each other. Since, however, each of the three divine persons participates in the acts of creation, redemption, and sustaining, traditionalist Christians reject this formulation as suggesting a new variety of Modalism. Some theologians prefer the alternate terminology of "Source, and Word, and Holy Spirit."
Interesting article, but I had to dig through too many links to get to some of it. For example:
in the Comma Johanneum section is this "One explicit trinitarian passage often quoted from the King James translation of the Bible is the result of an interpolation of a later date." The word "interpolation" turned out to be a somewhat mild term. First, the link pointed to the definition in the "mathematical subfield of numerical analysis". After reading part of that page, I had to click on the disambiguation link to look for the intended meaning. I found the correct one from the 6 choices there. If you must use an obscure term, the link should point to the correct definition.
Then, the article continues with "The passage now known as the Comma Johanneum or 1 John 5:7 from the King James Version; "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." may have begun as a marginal note quoting a homily of Cyprian (d. 258) that was inadvertently taken into the main body of the text by a copyist.[25] The phrase "inadvertently taken into the main body of the text by a copyist" was just one of two possibilities described by the reference. It states
All the historical data point in one of two directions: (1) This reading was a gloss added by Latin patristic writers whose interpretive zeal caused them to insert these words into Holy Writ; or (2) this interpretation was a gloss, written in the margins of some Latin MSS, probably sometime between 250 and 350, that got incorporated into the text by a scribe who was not sure whether it was a comment on scripture or scripture itself (a phenomenon that was not uncommon with scribes).
The possibility that the phrase was inserted because of "interpretive zeal" was omitted from the article, leaving only the "inadvertently taken into the main body of the text by a copyist" explanation.
Another interesting fact that was not readily apparent was...
Erasmus, the compiler of the Textus Receptus, noticed that the passage was not found in any of the Greek manuscripts at his disposal and refused to include it until presented with an example containing it, which he rightly suspected was concocted after the fact.[26]
The significance of that phrase escaped me until I followed another link and found this gem:
Erasmus replied that the Comma did not occur in any of the Greek manuscripts he could find; he eventually compromised with his critics, saying that he would add the Comma to future editions if it appeared in a Greek manuscript.[5] Such a manuscript was subsequently produced with "Codex 61"[6] Erasmus added the Comma to his 1522 edition, "but he indicates in a lengthy footnote his suspicions that the manuscript had been prepared expressly in order to confute him." Indeed the manuscript was written after Erasmus's request by a Franciscan from Oxford.[8] It was this third edition which became a chief source for the King James Version, thereby fixing the Comma firmly in the English-language scriptures for centuries.[5]
So I found that the phrase "he rightly suspected was concocted after the fact" was an antiseptic way of describing what actually happened.
Otherwise, interesting and thought provoking! Bebopadopoulos ( talk) 16:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I would like to see the Christianity sidebar template removed from this article. Are there good reasons for keeping it? The footer template scheme is a much cleaner navigation tool, in my opinion. — Mark ( Mkmcconn) ** 21:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Ilkali holds for "the one god", claiming that in that phrase "god" is a common noun, analogous to the word in "the Romans worshipped many gods", "many Anglo-Saxons worshiped the god Wotan", phrases given in WP:MoS. Ilkali admits that it is "normal" to capitalize the word "God" when referring to the monotheistic God of Christians. I think we should follow normal usage. What say others? Lima ( talk) 12:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
These are the six phrases in the article over which we disagree:
I think it best to leave further discussion to others. Lima ( talk) 17:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Downcasing "one god" in monotheistic contexts implies that there is a genus "god" of which there could be one or more exemplars, but there happens to be only one. But monotheism is not like that: it claims (as the article actually makes plain if it were read) that there cannot be more than one God in the sense that God is God; the many gods of a polytheistic religion are none of them like the monotheistic God. This article is, of course, a monotheistic context, in which the point is to explain a Christian theological concept. It is appropriate to speak "in world" if you will, with the lead making the situation clear, which is in fact what is done. To say "Christianity believes in one god, but the Greco-Roman pagans believed in many gods" would be to make a false statement, because the difference is principally about not number but about the understanding of what it is to be divine, and so you would need to say "Christianity believes in one God, and some others believed in many gods." Tb ( talk) 01:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm amazed this discussion is even occurring. MOS:CAPS says "Proper nouns and titles referencing deities are capitalized: God, Allah, Freya..." Proper nouns says "the word God is capitalised as a proper noun when used in a monotheistic context, because it is used as the name of a particular god." Surely that's the end of the discussion. StAnselm ( talk) 13:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
User:Ilkali: I have not insisted that there "one God" uses "God" as a proper noun, though the point is debatable. I have insisted that it is simply the correct usage--in monotheistic contexts--and your insistence that it is not does not somehow create consensus. This article had a consistent usage, which met consensus for years, and you have come along recently and decided to alter it. You must seek consensus to defend your change, not bluster in, insisting you have special expertise. Every style manual out there acknowledges that the usage of "God" is unusual in English, including its capitalization, generally saying simply that "God" should always be capitalized when it refers to the monotheistic single God. Your desire that this would not be so is interesting, but consensus already existed before you showed up here, insisting on your own way, and refusing to discuss the uestion beyond repeating the same points. As for the point, I'll now insist upon it. When the context is the monotheistic unique God, the phrase "one God" or "same God" uses "God" as a proper name, exactly as when someone says that "George W. Bush is the same Bush as the son of G. H. W. Bush." or "Thomas Becket is the one Becket among the archbishops of Canterbury." Or, "The Canterbury Tales refers to the only Canterbury in Kent." Tb ( talk) 19:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Trinity#The Origin of the Formula: The Council of Nicaea was reluctant to adopt language not found in scripture, and ultimately did so only after Arius showed how all strictly biblical language could also be interpreted to support his belief that there was a time when the Son did not exist. In adopting non-biblical language, the council's intent was to preserve what the Church had always believed: that the Son is fully God, coeternal with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit.
It sounds apologetical. Any sources or should it go? -- Observer99 ( talk) 00:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
In Buddhism , Buddha has always asked to follow 3 gems i.e. TRIRATNA : 1.Buddha (or God) 2.Dhamma (or word/scriptures) 3.Sangha (or Holy spirits)
The greeks learnt buddhism while in the Bactrian empire. King Ashoka (230 BC) had sent Buddhist missionaries to Alexandria. The Greeks & Jews there probably learnt about Triratna there and called it TRINATA (in latin). Jesus had spent 12 years of his childhood in Egypt (probably in Alexandria , being the largest colony of Jews there). So it is highly probable that Christianity borrowed Trinata in word & in concept from Buddhists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.98.160.250 ( talk) 10:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I have expressed a concern at User talk:67.209.3.82 that that editor's recent edits to this article cite primary rather than secondary sources. I am not going to simply undo these changes because they seem like a genuine attempt to improve the article, but the description which he/she has inserted does need to be linked to a notable third party viewpoint. Hopefully now that I've raised the issue, the editor in question will do so, but otherwise please could other editors take a look. Thanks. — Alan ✉ 13:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Does this article need a section discussing the Christian Trinity concept as it relates to the historically documented threefold dieties of other religions? For example the ancient Celtic pagans worshiped a threefold goddess with aspects of "Crone", "Mother" and "Maiden"? I think there are also three fold dieties in the Hindu and Chinese mythologies. 66.102.204.8 ( talk) 19:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Since this artical is seen in comparison with other articals in the Template Conceptions of God (shown at righthand side) {{ Conceptions of God}} in other beliefs, I suggest that it must be formated in the manner similar to articals, the most obious is the location of the this template which is placed below the general InfoBox about Christianity, while in all other articals it is at the top, I note in case of Islam the template Conceptions of God is at top while the template Islam is positioned under the second level heading (that is after two =s, dont know the right scripting nomenclature). I am eager to do this formating change in article Christianity, please suggest appropriate action. Mkashifafzal ( talk) 11:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I removed some text comparing the Trinity to ideas in Hinduism. Whilst this is a very legitimate topic, the text was poor and biased.
The text in question:
"But the word "Trinity" is came from the ancient Hindu culture from India. In Hinduism, the three main gods Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are called "Trimurthis".In sanskrit and all other languages in India, "Tri" means Three. This is a clear evidence of copying words and ideas from Sanskrit to English and other European languages. So christanity is actually copied ideas from other parts of the world, basically from Jews and Hindus."
MFD
C. Logan,
Facts
Comment
I have looked up in the Discussions for your supposed contributions (“as per Talk reasoning”) on “Nontrinitarianism”: there is nothing of yours relevant to the point, and/or specific, and certainly nothing after 19 March 2007.
The Trinity is, obviously, a very controversial subject, so much so that, within the body of the main article, there is an entire section (present section no.6) on “Nontrinitarianism” further subdivided in two sub-sections, “Criticisms of trinitarian doctrine” (6.1) and “Nontrinitarian groups” (6.2).
So, it is perfectly normal that a controversial subject as the Trinity, for which a section with subsections on antagonistic POVs has already been accommodated for in the main article, should also have the section “External Links” subdivided accordingly in “Pro” and “Con” subsections.
Another, altogether different issue, is the quality of the links, which can certainly be criticized and improved upon, with editing, NOT wholesale deletion.
Conclusion
I am therefore going to reintroduce the subsections and links that you have removed.
Warning
At your next attempt of removing a. m. subsections and links, I am going to resort to some form of “Dispute Resolution”
WP:DR
Miguel de Servet
16:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
The vast majority of Christians consider the matter settled as of 381.
— TCC 20:59, 23 March 2007]
TCC,
if there was any need for evidence that those who argue against the opportunity of keeping the section "External Links" subdivided in “Pro Trinity” and "Contra Trinity", are NOT expressing an objective NPOV attitude, but a heavily doctrinal defence of the Dogma of the Trinity, you have (perhaps unwittingly ?) provided it.
--
Miguel de Servet
15:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
AnonMoos,
are you seriously trying to argue that, as of 381 CE (interesting choice, BTW, as distinguished form 325 CE), the future of Christianity, including not only the dogma of the Trinity, but also of Sacraments, of Church discipline, of Predestination etc. was clearly and irreversibly chartered? What an appallingly uncritical, naive idea!
Miguel de Servet
18:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
The trinity is controversial both within Christianity and within monotheism in general. The very fact that so many Christians stake this doctrine out as an absolute even when they're willing to question Church tradition and the Bible itself, that fact makes legitimate opposition to it all the more noteworthy. We have no business excluding other sides from the discussion. A nontrinitarian reader (Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Buddist, unitarian, Sikh, New Age, modalist, etc.) can reasonably wonder about the source of this singular doctrine and its incidence among Christians. If the claims of the nontrinitarians are rubbish, trust the informed reader to recognize such. Jonathan Tweet 20:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
The vast majority of Christians DON'T HAVE A CLUE what happened in 381.
— Jacob
ribs) 00:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I added an external link:
This link does not belong on the nontrinitarianism page because its topic is the trinity, not nontrinitarianism. Jonathan Tweet 03:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I reverted a sizable chunk of text added by an anonymous user. Large portions of it appear to have been lifted verbatim from Catholic Answers and The Catholic Encyclopedia. Neither is really suitable here as verbatim text, and the former is a copyright violation. There may have been a useful sentence or two in there, but it would have been more trouble than it's worth to disentangle it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
This article confounds the terms 'Modalism' and 'Oneness'. Most Oneness believers do not believe in a modal kind of oneness. They believe that Jesus Christ is the One Personal God, and that He is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit simultaneously. A modal belief on the other hand is a belief in successive manifestations of God. The effect of not making this distinction is to hook the Oneness doctrine to the anchor of this ancient heresy so as to drown it and make people ignore the Biblical confirmations of the Oneness doctrine.
Jasonschnarr 22:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Modalism does not necessitate "a succession of modes". Swedenbourgianism, one form of modalism, holds to such a succession. Classic Oneness terminology is "Father in creation, Son in redemption, and Spirit in regeneration", but these terms refer to the modes in which God works in relation to humanity. It does not mean that the "Spirit" did not exist until after the "Son" ascended. Jacob 15:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi all. Someone mistakenly put Christian Science in the catagory of nontrinitarian. I removed their name from the list and added a little blurb in the begining of another aspect of the Trinity. Seems to be some misunderstanding about what Christian Science believes. Great to have the opportunity to get a full picture of the different ways to view the trinity. E-mail if you have any questions Would it be better to add Mary Baker Eddy's ideas on the trinity under historical perspectives? Simplywater 19:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your opinion, however, her definitions of the Christ and God are found in m-w.com. Meaning, her insights are recognized as valuable, unique, and historical understanding of Christian concepts. Perhaps you can tell me which part of this section you would like her definition included. 70.56.22.171 07:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC) Simplywater 07:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you guys for working with me! That was easy. Simplywater 03:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely my pleasure. Don't let the 40 days throw you :) these discussions have been going on for 1900 years. what's another 40 days or so. Simplywater 17:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi all, Somehow I need to reference Science and Health because that is the source of the quotes used. I´ve tried to put it in, but not sure how.
Hello, ok, I have the feeling there is some objection to having the book Science and Health with Key to the Scripture on this page. I've never seen personal edits on reference books in encyclopidias. My biggest objection is the insistence that Christian Science is non-trinitarian. Christian Science includes the trinity in it's teachings. You may not like it, but my understanding is that this is an encyclopdia. Wikipedia is an attempt to let those who are interested in knowing the different ways terms can be explored. "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the WORD, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." 1 John, 5:7
So, how do we edit references? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.80 ( talk) 18:19, 22 June 2007
I'm in Guatemala and for some reason this signal doesn't record my user name. I have no objection that the CS understanding of Trinity is different than orthodox understanding. And in fact, Trinity isn't even in the King James Bible. But we are trinitarian in that we believe in the unity of God, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. We believe that those concepts are purely spiritual and never material. Simplywater
Thanks for the interesting note on the Johannine Comma. Wow what interesting research!! I guess for me it's another example of how the Bible encourages us to stretch, never lets us be done. I mean, God is the Infinite.
It is claimed that only a small fraction of people don't accept the Trinity, and thus their point of view seems to be waredited out. By this logic only a small fraction of people in catholic lands support abortion or birth control because the church officially opposes these.
Respected people such as Isaac Newton have quietly and strongly disagreed with the "official" view, and there are many shades of opinion, some may agree with concept of "Father, son and spirit" as important thus trinity but disagree that father son and spirit are co-equal and all without beginning. An opinion without solid evidence that only one side is common is flawed, it is obvious from these discussions and all over the internet that there are lots of people on both sides and we could also includes non-christian historical scholars.
I believe NPOV is quite clear and editing an article to delete opposing views and correct weasel words is wrong but is happenning.
I suggest rather than split articles based on opinions (which violates NPOV), we split them based on sub-topic if needed. Eg we can have a detailed discussion on John 1:1 and any other scripture or group of scriptures including the original greek text and transliteration and comparisions to other scriptures with same greek words in similar usage and many different sources linked to show that the westcott and horts or whatever source of that text is not in dispute. In the main article we should hyperlink a reference to the discussion on each individual topic and only abreviate in a neutral way opinions given.
It looks like this debate has being going on for year or more, so I suggest we mediate this out, and afterwards if warediting happens put article under protection.
I moved this section to the bottom of the page, which is where new threads ought to go, and also removed the Mediation banner. Not only has the issue been resolved, but the request for mediation was never actually made. I'll add a substantive comment later, but I want to save the ASAP to avoid edit conflicts. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
First, we don't simply cite scripture as we like here as if it clearly supported on side or the other. We cite scripture that has actually been used by one side of the debate in order to support their thesis, ideally giving references as we go. To do otherwise is original research.
Second, we can characterize the debate in the article, but we do not actually engage in debate in the article. If this article seems pro-Trinity, it can nevertheless hardly be an NPOV violation when there's an entire article devoted to the "other side". Do we engage in the debate in both articles? That would be the only fair way to do it if we were to. But, thankfully, we don't. However, the point of this article is to cover the subject of the Trinity. We cover other points of view in their own devoted articles.
Third, the absurd contentions about the Greek meaning something different is unsourced. We don't get to simply make assertions like that without supporting them by citing reliable sources. In any event the fact is that the doctrine was formulated by people who spoke NT Greek as their day-to-day language, and they understood it perfectly well. (Just to hazard a guess here, user:David edmonton is Jehovah's Witness with his harping on John 1. Their mistranslation of the crucial opening verses is notorious.)
Fourth: David, all you have done since editing on Wikipedia is to edit-war over this article. [4]. I strongly suggest you take the time to review Wikipedia policy and get used to the way things are done around here before you start this kind of activity, which is strongly frowned upon. It's not an auspicious start, and I'd much rather see you a productive editor than get banned or ostracized. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
And fifth: David, before you make one more edit, please learn wiki syntax, particularly how to create internal links. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe it is against the wikipedia way to have an article with a Point of View and justify it by moving alternate views into a different article that is hard to find a link to. For example the treatment of gospel of John as claimed to support trinity, with only citations of supporting scriptures and alternate scriptures that fit the same format but do not seem to support trinity being removed. If we can find a way to be more balanced, great, I am not going to waste time posting and having stuff deleted 10 minutes later. I am willing to go to formal mediation over this if we can't resolve our differences.
I would be happy to find a common ground where there is an easy to find means to see all views on each piece of evidence so that any newbie user who types "Trinity" in wikipedia search and only reads some of the article will see a NPOV. David edmonton 00:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I think we have to be careful with some of our logic. For example, there are many articles on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and on all of them you will find critiques and statements that others believe differently. Using some of your logic here all of that information should be deleted because the topic is Mormonism. Logan, I have found that we generally agree on most ways of editing and I respect you as an editor. My comments should not be interpreted to be in full support of the other side, but only that you make sure that there is a balance found in the article with easy, prevalent links to those articles that support a contrary view. Does this seem appropriate? I did not reread the entire article again before making this edit so I am only addressing the talk page at this time. Cheers. -- Storm Rider (talk) 03:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
While I agree that the history section should be rewritten in prose and put into context, I disagree strongly that this article should turn into a debating society transcript. Again: Are any of you who are arguing for "balance" at such length here equally willing to "balance" nontrinitarian-related articles as well? If not, why not? Any reason you might give here for "balance" would apply there as well. In other words, you would have to be equally in favor of arguing for the Trinity in those articles as you are for arguing for nontrinitarianism here. So why don't I see anyone doing that?
Of course, this is a bad idea on its face since it would result in duplicated content. If it's a bad idea for either, then for genuine balance its a bad idea for both. Since nontrinitarianism is a complete subject in its own right it deserves its own article and should not be merged in here -- it would made this article an over-long, jumbled mess anyway. To present complete arguments for the opposite POV in one article but not the other is to create a slant toward nontrinitarianism.
Sorry, you don't get to do that. TCC (talk) (contribs) 18:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I should note that we should definitely have sources which support the exegeses of these particular verses being in support of the Trinity. Holy Scripture is a primary source, and as such lends itself to highly to personal interpretation (OR). One need only look up 'Christian denominations' to fully grasp just how easy it is for one individual to catch a wave of followers with his or her own personal interpretation of things. As such, the scriptural presentations on the page should be given citations- while I earnestly believe in the Trinitarian quality of many of them, there is no certainty without sources that anyone else but myself and the contributing editor felt that such scriptures were in support of the Trinity. Sources for these assertions shouldn't be hard to find- I do believe that the Bible commentary in many editions of the Bible counts as a reasonably reliable secondary source. Of course, make no mistakes- I'm not saying that Nontrinitarian arguments belong here (outside of the summary section). There is a place for such material on Wikipedia- links to such articles are more than sufficient. This article which intends to detail the 'who', 'what', 'when', 'why', 'where', and 'how' of the Trinity- not common arguments against it. -- C.Logan 03:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if this is the right place to mention it but it is confusing to present The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints as both non-trinitarian and Non-Orthodox trinitarian. RealbigD ( talk) 16:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
There is no historical evidence that Ignatius was a Trinitarian. His writings follow closely to the writings of Paul in format and content. As a third generation church leader, he was prior to the Apostolic Fathers and prior to formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity. Only in the interpolated longer rescensions of his letters do you begin to see where later revisionists began to add Trinitarian language to his writings. In the accurate middle rescensions, there is no such language. These quotes should be removed as support for the Trinity. Jacob 17:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I have made a beginning page called List of miracles, and one of my main issues was the name of the Christian 'God'. I have Allah and Yahweh, for Islam and Judaism respectively, however I am hesitant to use Jehova, as this is viewed as being inaccurate. SCmurky 04:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
The opening paragraph contains the sentence: "The majority of Christians are Trinitarian, and regard belief in the Trinity as a test of orthodoxy." Someone removed the last phrase, "and regard belief in the Trinity as a test of orthodoxy," with the dismissive comment, "removed nonsense". The original sentence is an accurate NPOV statement of fact--the majority of Christians do believe that belief in the Trinity is a test of orthodoxy. Whether or not an individual agrees with that or not is of course another queston, but such personal opinions have no place in a Wikipedia article. I undid the change, and if anyone feels it was wrong to do so, please discuss it here rather than begin an edit war. Thank you. MishaPan 17:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
This site was removed per WP:EL, but I recall user Csernica allowing this blog to remain (he previously removed blog links) because it was by a recognized authority. It is by a professional in the field (professor in the philosophy of religion), so I do suppose it holds some weight on the subject. Either way, it makes for an interesting resource. Is there any input on whether or not this link should remain?-- C.Logan 05:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
There is an earlier reference to some sort of unified spirit of God earlier than listed in the Bible. In Genesis 4 it says, "Then God said, Let us make man in our image ... in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." Isn't it interesting that the pronoun "us" was used? This possibly shows the union of the spirit. The Trinity also shows a way of somewhat explaining our yearning for community. Maybe our creator was the very definition of the word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.39.133.133 ( talk) 15:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Considering myself a mainstream christian, I find this repetition of God being "3 persons" absurd – I thought "3 personae", and considered "personae" being distinct from "person" – so I looked up "persona" in my Latin dictionary and found (tataaa, imagine a trumpet):
that is: something like a role in f.ex. a theatre play. Said: Rursus ☻ 11:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
The article is in ENGLISH, not LATIN. It SHOULD be fixed. A "person", in ENGLISH, is a "living human being", not God, not the Holy Spirit. The etymological path should never take precedence over knowingly confusing the reader with definitions that are not in English dictionaries! The whole article needs fixing to use persona, hypostases, or personae, as described in the wiki article on hypostasis. The reference in this article that tries to justify the use of "persons" is a 1913 Catholic encyclopedia definition which is not modern nor objective. By trying to force a new definition on the current English word, it shows a religious bias and does not help newcomers to the subject understand it, which is the whole purpose of wiki. Instead, using "persons" in the opening paragraphs without explaining why promotes only confusion for those trying to clear up the confusion. 24.214.120.227 ( talk) 14:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
You are both using part of the definition of trinity (i.e. its modification of the word "person") to define trinity. You're creating a circular reference within the article. Bolding (i disagree with that), italicizing, and linking the word "person" does not help clarify the article. At least hypostasis has been added which i guess resolves my concerns. But i still say you can't say "person" without the immediate image of a human coming to mind for 99% of all English readers. For this reason, it should be deprecated in all intellectual discussions of the trinity in favor of another word, as the FIRST TWO people in this section stated, so you two are out-voted in keeping the word "person", but i don't have a continuing desire to argue with theological-minded people fighting over their turf to the detriment of people who would like to learn about the subject using common English. 24.214.120.227 ( talk) 18:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
The edit automaton complains that the article is 82 kilobytes long, there's a {{quotefarm}} complaint. So therefore, I suggest the article might be cleaned by moving the quote farm section Formulation of the Doctrine to a separate article, and writing a short review to replace the section. Said: Rursus ☻ 13:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Inserted {{quotefarm}} on my own in section Scriptural texts cited as implying support, only the section texts and a few links to relevant citations are needed. The list of citations could be analysed better elsewhere, then preferrably against a background of theological debates, in order to make this apologetic material sensible for an encyclopedia. Said: Rursus ☻ 15:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I had added a short paragraph at the end of the intro regarding part of the historical significance of this concept. I just re-edited and the paragraph now looks like the following.
C.Logan had previously eliminated the reference to the Roman Empire and the statement regarding the longevity of the debate with the following comment.
I would like to explain why a reverted the changes (well, with some slight alterations).
-- Mcorazao 18:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't specifically disagree that mentioning other conflicts surrounding Trinitarianism are significant. And I agree that a discussion of the reasons for the final victory of the Trinitarian/Nicene doctrine. I also agree that the intro is somewhat vague on the significance of the Arian controversy. Frankly I do not quite know how to succinctly summarize the issue in the intro without going into too much detail to be appropriate. So I opted for just bringing it up and make the reader curious to read on.
I would argue, however, that the original Arian controversy (bearing in mind that those labeled "Arians" were not all truly followers of Arius) was more significant historically than the controversy with Unitarianism. It is especially significant since the so-called Arian controversy was born out the original debates among the Christian community (i.e. this did not "originate" in the 4th century it was just during the 4th century that it all came to a head). The Unitarian and similar controversies came up much later and, in and of themselves, never represented a major split in the Christian community as the Arian controversy did.
Regarding the patriarchates vs. the whole Christian community I think you're looking at history in a biased way (albeit the way most churches today tend to view it). When Constantine convened the councils there was no established pentarchy and the Christian community was not, even then, confined to the empire. There certainly was no general consensus that Constantine, the bishop of Rome, or any of the other bishops had any special rights to speak for Christianity. Constantine was attempting to build a consensus on the definition of Christianity but I don't think it can be objectively argued that he succeeded (as evidenced by the Council of Rimini). But even if you argue there was a consensus, the bishops did not carry the authority to speak for every Christian community, especially not all those outside the empire.
In any event my attempt was not to attempt to justify the historical significance of the concept. The point is that although most people today tend to think that modern Trinitarianism has been almost exclusively the viewpoint within Christianity since its earliest days, in fact the very concept was at the heart of many major political and military battles in Europe/Africa/Asia for several centuries. I think that is significant enough to at least mention in the introduction.
-- Mcorazao 04:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps mentioning the Gnostic views is worthwhile as well. It is hard to know where to draw the line. In any event it is clear that there is some "agreeing to disagree" here. Thanks for all the feedback.
I will say that although I certainly support efforts to reword for clarity I still don't like the current wording. It is problematic on two counts: 1) The "Western Roman Empire" did not really exist during the most of the period the current revision is discussing, and 2) The new wording is a bit unclear for the novice reader. Most people wouldn't know what is being referred to by a "segregated social order". In other words, I think by adding detail things were made less clear. If I had my 'druthers I'd suggest perhaps
But I'll halt any further commentary since at least the issue is mentioned which is more than was there before.
-- Mcorazao 17:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I think we should look at the Bigfoot page and see how they handle criticism of their concept. Do they have criticisms of the Bigfoot theory on a separate page or on the same page? I am going to look now. 69.51.152.180 —Preceding comment was added at 03:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is just my thinking, but i believe that the picture GodSonHolySpirit.jpg displayed is going against what this article is talking about or something to that effect, because the trinity is 3 people, the Holy Spirit ((who can be thought of as a dove in John 1:32 "I saw the ((Holy)) Spirit come down from heaven as a dove" and Jesus being a man, but i don't think God should be represented as a bearded man, even a man, even though in Genesis 1:27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." we don't know what he looks like, and shouldn't be imagining what he looks like, because it would be Idolatry. now this is just my opinion, if anybody has anything to say about this, please say it, i'd like to understand. Alec92 03:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
My friend, you answered the question yourself! "So God created man in his own image, in the IMAGE of God He created him.."....Think...Apparently, MAN is the IMAGE of his creator, is he not?...hint,,, Man is a THREE part being, (Body, Soul, Spirit...).David B
I don't get the feeling that the article really gets to grips with the origins of the belief in God as Trinity. It describes the process, but not the reasons. What prompted me was a personal interest in the relationship of the episode of the 3 visitors to Abraham, one of the God and the other two described as angels. Given the intense interest of the early church in Genesis, could they have decided that this was in fact the Trinity? (Maybe not, since the visitors are explicitly described in Greek as angels, although in Hebrew they're "men"- but clearly not just any sort of men). Anyway, why did the early church decide God had to be 3? Two would have been enough - God the Father and God the Son - so why three? PiCo 11:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
On a side note, this section may not be pertinent to article improvement. The OP seems to want to enforce theories from his own school of thought, but as it is, we don't push POVs. I suppose there is somewhat of a case for concern here, so I've left it, but as it seems, it just appears to be a case of an individual unsatisfied that the article (and reliable scholarship) doesn't cater to his line of thinking. Correct me if I'm wrong.-- C.Logan 02:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
The section Trinity in Art has a subsection that consists only of a gallery of pictures. Shouldn't that go at the bottom of the article, before the notes and references? For that matter, shouldn't the entire Trinity and Art be transferred to the end? -- Blanchardb 21:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
No and No. The article ends with several highly (?over-) detailed theological sections, and the art section should be where it is. There is no reason not to have the galleries next to the text they illustrate. Johnbod 22:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm seeing weasel words in here, especially in the OT section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.129.232.37 ( talk) 22:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I believe that, in an article about the Trinity, the least that could be expected is a list of scriptures commonly used in support of the doctrine. That there are such scriptures does not constitute OR (it's more like duh!), but specific passages may be tagged as OR if no one can say who is using them to support the Trinity, and how. So the OR tag should be directed at specific passages on this page. -- Blanchardb ( talk) 00:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Now, anon had recently inserted an objection into the text concerning the statement that the Comma Johanneum was not used patristically, citing St.Cyprian's note in the sixth chapter of his "On the Unity of the Church".
Now, after checking the text in question (and the article on the Comma Johanneum, which contained some rather sloppy OR arguing against the validity of the claim that Cyprian quoted the text directly), it appears to be semi-correct. Cyprian states:
The Lord says, “I and the Father are one;” and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, “And these three are one.” And does any one believe that this unity which thus comes from the divine strength and coheres in celestial sacraments, can be divided in the Church, and can be separated by the parting asunder of opposing wills?
As such, he doesn't quote the entire verse directly, but he does paraphrase the text in a manner which does not count out the possibility of the original text conveying the same concept (the OR on Comma Johanneum claimed this possibility as unlikely, apparently in the opinion of one editor).
The Catholic Encyclopedia notes that while the Greek and Armenian fathers do not use the text until the 12th century, "The Latin Fathers make much earlier use of the text as canonical Scripture. St. Cyprian (third century) seems undoubtedly to have had it in mind, when he quotes John, x, 30, and adds: "Et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est -- Et hi tres unum sunt" (De Unitate Ecclesiæ, vi). Clear also is the witness of St. Fulgentius (sixth century, "Responsio contra Arianos" in P. L., LXV, 224), who refers to the above witness of St. Cyprian. In fact, outside of St. Augustine, the Fathers of the African Church are to be grouped with St. Cyprian in favour of the canonicity of the passage. The silence of the great and voluminous St. Augustine and the variation in form of the text in the African Church are admitted facts that militate against the canonicity of the three witnesses. St. Jerome (fourth century) does not seem to know the text. After the sixth century, the disputed passage is more and more in use among the Latin Fathers; and, by the twelfth century, is commonly cited as canonical Scripture."
While the authenticity of the text is certainly disputable, I don't think that the issue is so clear-cut that one can say that "it was not used patristically". Therefore, I think the statement should be excluded, with the issue of Cyprian and those who quoted his statement/usage of the phrasing dealt with in other sections of the article.-- C.Logan 21:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Just noticed that Italian Wikipedia has an article it:Iconografia_della_Trinità; it would be useful to have a similar article here... AnonMoos ( talk) 15:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Against my better judgment, I wrote a sourced response in the article to a comment that was added today to the bottom of the Criticism and Debate section. The next time, I think I will simply revert the addition. Please feel free to revert the two edits that were made today if you deem that appropriate. --Blanchardb- Me MyEars MyMouth-timed 22:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
User:Wonderpet added this article to Category:Triune gods. User:Blanchardb reverted that edit saying "Only opponents of this doctrine claim that the Trinity means a Triune God" in the edit summary.
I reverted Blanchardb back to Wonderpet's original edit. Aside from the fact that I think I disagree with Blanchardb's edit summary, there is also the problem that Triune God redirects to this article and the article on the Holy Spirit is also in Category:Triune gods. Thus, this is an issue that is not simply resolved by reverting User:Wonderpet and requires further discussion. Can we start this discussion by having Blanchardb and Wonderpet explain what their positions are on this question?
-- Richard ( talk) 19:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I haven't even looked at the Triune Gods category -- but Christians believe God is Triune, so... what's the problem? Is it a problem with the formulation of the respective concepts? People can see those differences in the articles -- but they'll only see those differences if the articles link to each other. My point is this: if they ARE related the articles will make that apparent, and if they are NOT related the articles will make that apparent. The link is beneficial whichever side of the fence you're on. People should pick meaningful battles; this isn't one. Tim ( talk) 21:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
My problem with the link is not the link its self but that the category is a bogus one and should maybe be deleted. Like Tim said, its not a battle worth spending a lot of time on, the article can beef up the distinction a little more if we keep the subcategory but we should be careful about over categorization, especially on sub cats . Hardyplants ( talk) 00:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
My own OR is that it's archetypal (even Philo associated two powers with God, as I've seen from the sources cited on the Shituf page). It cuts across unrelated cultures in such a way that it may be embedded in the psyche (even language has first, second, and third person constructions -- but I am not aware of a "fourth" person linguistic pattern). The problem is that the formulation of "Trinity" and "Triad" are different, but that can be resolved easily: A Triad is Tri-theistic. A Trinity is something else entirely. The category should be renamed to something like "Divine Triad or Trinity." I have no idea how to rename a category. But that would resolve the formulation difference problem on both sides. The concepts do relate, even though they are not the same. Tim ( talk) 18:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
The category contains triads. Triads DO relate to the Trinity, though they are not the same. Isis-Horus-Set, for example, and Odin-Ville-Ve (the allfather, Will, and Wisdom). These are triads. There is a triple goddess listed there. All I'm suggesting is a renaming of the category to include "Triad" in its title along with "Trinity" (or "Triune"). That way, people can find what they are looking for more easily, and they can debate the relationship or difference between the two. Look -- the point of NPOV is to be a useful tool for people of any POV. We want to sell ammunition to both sides of any POV at the same time. Are they the same? Are they not? Let the readers figure it out. All we are supposed to do is give them the opportunity to do so with neutral information. Tim ( talk) 19:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
In "Formulation of the doctrine" I switched it on one sentence which had "Docetism and Sabellianism ( Christ the same as God, or an illusion)" because the way it read it sounded like it was saying Docetism - same as God, and Sabellianism - illusion, when it should be the reverse. So, just a little flip for clarity - signed Anon. (don't have account yet)
The word "Some" is use a few times in this paragraph, and it is lacking in the concomitant referencing, falling into violation of the policy Wikipedia:NOR as it is:
Some feminist theologians refer to the persons of the Holy Trinity with gender-neutral language, such as "Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer (or Sanctifier)." This is a recent formulation, which seeks to redefine the Trinity in terms of three roles in salvation or relationships with us, not eternal identities or relationships with each other. Since, however, each of the three divine persons participates in the acts of creation, redemption, and sustaining, traditionalist Christians reject this formulation as suggesting a new variety of Modalism. Some theologians prefer the alternate terminology of "Source, and Word, and Holy Spirit."
Interesting article, but I had to dig through too many links to get to some of it. For example:
in the Comma Johanneum section is this "One explicit trinitarian passage often quoted from the King James translation of the Bible is the result of an interpolation of a later date." The word "interpolation" turned out to be a somewhat mild term. First, the link pointed to the definition in the "mathematical subfield of numerical analysis". After reading part of that page, I had to click on the disambiguation link to look for the intended meaning. I found the correct one from the 6 choices there. If you must use an obscure term, the link should point to the correct definition.
Then, the article continues with "The passage now known as the Comma Johanneum or 1 John 5:7 from the King James Version; "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." may have begun as a marginal note quoting a homily of Cyprian (d. 258) that was inadvertently taken into the main body of the text by a copyist.[25] The phrase "inadvertently taken into the main body of the text by a copyist" was just one of two possibilities described by the reference. It states
All the historical data point in one of two directions: (1) This reading was a gloss added by Latin patristic writers whose interpretive zeal caused them to insert these words into Holy Writ; or (2) this interpretation was a gloss, written in the margins of some Latin MSS, probably sometime between 250 and 350, that got incorporated into the text by a scribe who was not sure whether it was a comment on scripture or scripture itself (a phenomenon that was not uncommon with scribes).
The possibility that the phrase was inserted because of "interpretive zeal" was omitted from the article, leaving only the "inadvertently taken into the main body of the text by a copyist" explanation.
Another interesting fact that was not readily apparent was...
Erasmus, the compiler of the Textus Receptus, noticed that the passage was not found in any of the Greek manuscripts at his disposal and refused to include it until presented with an example containing it, which he rightly suspected was concocted after the fact.[26]
The significance of that phrase escaped me until I followed another link and found this gem:
Erasmus replied that the Comma did not occur in any of the Greek manuscripts he could find; he eventually compromised with his critics, saying that he would add the Comma to future editions if it appeared in a Greek manuscript.[5] Such a manuscript was subsequently produced with "Codex 61"[6] Erasmus added the Comma to his 1522 edition, "but he indicates in a lengthy footnote his suspicions that the manuscript had been prepared expressly in order to confute him." Indeed the manuscript was written after Erasmus's request by a Franciscan from Oxford.[8] It was this third edition which became a chief source for the King James Version, thereby fixing the Comma firmly in the English-language scriptures for centuries.[5]
So I found that the phrase "he rightly suspected was concocted after the fact" was an antiseptic way of describing what actually happened.
Otherwise, interesting and thought provoking! Bebopadopoulos ( talk) 16:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I would like to see the Christianity sidebar template removed from this article. Are there good reasons for keeping it? The footer template scheme is a much cleaner navigation tool, in my opinion. — Mark ( Mkmcconn) ** 21:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Ilkali holds for "the one god", claiming that in that phrase "god" is a common noun, analogous to the word in "the Romans worshipped many gods", "many Anglo-Saxons worshiped the god Wotan", phrases given in WP:MoS. Ilkali admits that it is "normal" to capitalize the word "God" when referring to the monotheistic God of Christians. I think we should follow normal usage. What say others? Lima ( talk) 12:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
These are the six phrases in the article over which we disagree:
I think it best to leave further discussion to others. Lima ( talk) 17:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Downcasing "one god" in monotheistic contexts implies that there is a genus "god" of which there could be one or more exemplars, but there happens to be only one. But monotheism is not like that: it claims (as the article actually makes plain if it were read) that there cannot be more than one God in the sense that God is God; the many gods of a polytheistic religion are none of them like the monotheistic God. This article is, of course, a monotheistic context, in which the point is to explain a Christian theological concept. It is appropriate to speak "in world" if you will, with the lead making the situation clear, which is in fact what is done. To say "Christianity believes in one god, but the Greco-Roman pagans believed in many gods" would be to make a false statement, because the difference is principally about not number but about the understanding of what it is to be divine, and so you would need to say "Christianity believes in one God, and some others believed in many gods." Tb ( talk) 01:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm amazed this discussion is even occurring. MOS:CAPS says "Proper nouns and titles referencing deities are capitalized: God, Allah, Freya..." Proper nouns says "the word God is capitalised as a proper noun when used in a monotheistic context, because it is used as the name of a particular god." Surely that's the end of the discussion. StAnselm ( talk) 13:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
User:Ilkali: I have not insisted that there "one God" uses "God" as a proper noun, though the point is debatable. I have insisted that it is simply the correct usage--in monotheistic contexts--and your insistence that it is not does not somehow create consensus. This article had a consistent usage, which met consensus for years, and you have come along recently and decided to alter it. You must seek consensus to defend your change, not bluster in, insisting you have special expertise. Every style manual out there acknowledges that the usage of "God" is unusual in English, including its capitalization, generally saying simply that "God" should always be capitalized when it refers to the monotheistic single God. Your desire that this would not be so is interesting, but consensus already existed before you showed up here, insisting on your own way, and refusing to discuss the uestion beyond repeating the same points. As for the point, I'll now insist upon it. When the context is the monotheistic unique God, the phrase "one God" or "same God" uses "God" as a proper name, exactly as when someone says that "George W. Bush is the same Bush as the son of G. H. W. Bush." or "Thomas Becket is the one Becket among the archbishops of Canterbury." Or, "The Canterbury Tales refers to the only Canterbury in Kent." Tb ( talk) 19:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Trinity#The Origin of the Formula: The Council of Nicaea was reluctant to adopt language not found in scripture, and ultimately did so only after Arius showed how all strictly biblical language could also be interpreted to support his belief that there was a time when the Son did not exist. In adopting non-biblical language, the council's intent was to preserve what the Church had always believed: that the Son is fully God, coeternal with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit.
It sounds apologetical. Any sources or should it go? -- Observer99 ( talk) 00:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
In Buddhism , Buddha has always asked to follow 3 gems i.e. TRIRATNA : 1.Buddha (or God) 2.Dhamma (or word/scriptures) 3.Sangha (or Holy spirits)
The greeks learnt buddhism while in the Bactrian empire. King Ashoka (230 BC) had sent Buddhist missionaries to Alexandria. The Greeks & Jews there probably learnt about Triratna there and called it TRINATA (in latin). Jesus had spent 12 years of his childhood in Egypt (probably in Alexandria , being the largest colony of Jews there). So it is highly probable that Christianity borrowed Trinata in word & in concept from Buddhists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.98.160.250 ( talk) 10:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I have expressed a concern at User talk:67.209.3.82 that that editor's recent edits to this article cite primary rather than secondary sources. I am not going to simply undo these changes because they seem like a genuine attempt to improve the article, but the description which he/she has inserted does need to be linked to a notable third party viewpoint. Hopefully now that I've raised the issue, the editor in question will do so, but otherwise please could other editors take a look. Thanks. — Alan ✉ 13:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Does this article need a section discussing the Christian Trinity concept as it relates to the historically documented threefold dieties of other religions? For example the ancient Celtic pagans worshiped a threefold goddess with aspects of "Crone", "Mother" and "Maiden"? I think there are also three fold dieties in the Hindu and Chinese mythologies. 66.102.204.8 ( talk) 19:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)